Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A.; Decision and Order, 9167-9169 [2025-02339]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 25 / Friday, February 7, 2025 / Notices
I. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of
Registrant’s default, the factual
allegations in the OSC are admitted.
According to the OSC, effective January
12, 2024, the Medical Board of
California revoked Registrant’s
California medical license. RFAAX 1, at
2. According to California’s online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Registrant’s California
medical license remains revoked.2
California DCA License Search, https://
search.dca.ca.gov/ (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Registrant is not
licensed to practice medicine in
California, the state in which he is
registered with DEA.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
II. Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
license or registration suspended . . .
[or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.’’
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has
also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, D.O., 76 FR 71371,
71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).3
2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an
agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage
in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint
1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an
agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a
party is entitled, on timely request, to an
opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly,
Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by
filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such
motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.
3 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First,
Congress defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean
‘‘a physician . . . or other person licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to
distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Feb 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
According to California statute,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user
or research subject by or pursuant to the
lawful order of a practitioner, including
the prescribing, furnishing, packaging,
labeling, or compounding necessary to
prepare the substance for that delivery.’’
Cal. Health & Safety Code section 11010
(West 2024). Furthermore, a
‘‘practitioner’’ means a person
‘‘licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, to distribute, dispense,
conduct research with respect to, or
administer, a controlled substance in
the course of professional practice or
research in [the] state.’’ Id.
section 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant currently lacks
authority to practice medicine in
California. As discussed above, a
physician must be a licensed
practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in California. Thus, because
Registrant currently lacks authority to
practice medicine in California and,
therefore, is not currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in
California, Registrant is not eligible to
maintain a DEA registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Registrant’s DEA registration be
revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. BA6612142 issued to
Massoud Amini, M.D. Further, pursuant
to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority
vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I
hereby deny any pending applications
of Massoud Amini, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any
other pending application of Massoud
Amini, M.D., for additional registration
in California. This Order is effective
March 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress
has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess
state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner
under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that
revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer
authorized to dispense controlled substances under
the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71372; Sheran
Arden Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993);
Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9167
on January 31, 2025, by Acting
Administrator Derek Maltz. That
document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DEA. For
administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DEA Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of DEA. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025–02342 Filed 2–6–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24–47]
Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A.; Decision and
Order
On May 21, 2024, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Herold Pierre-Louis,
P.A., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent).
OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
MP7845766, alleging that Respondent’s
DEA registration should be revoked
because Respondent is ‘‘without
authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or otherwise handle
controlled substances in the State of
Arizona, the state in which [he is]
registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
On May 30, 2024, Respondent
requested a hearing and filed an Answer
to the OSC. On June 10, 2024, the
Government filed a Motion for
Summary Disposition, to which
Respondent did not respond.1 On June
27, 2024, Administrative Law Judge
Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent’s registration,
finding that because Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances in Arizona, the state in
which he is registered with DEA, ‘‘there
is no other fact of consequence for this
tribunal to decide.’’ Order Granting the
1 On June 17, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to
Continue Show Cause Hearing to request a
continuance on the instant proceedings, which the
Administrative Law Judge denied.
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
9168
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 25 / Friday, February 7, 2025 / Notices
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition, and Recommended
Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 5.
Respondent did not file exceptions to
the RD.
Having reviewed the entire record, the
Agency adopts and hereby incorporates
by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s
rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommended sanction as
found in the RD and summarizes and
expands upon portions thereof herein.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Findings of Fact
On or about November 29, 2023, the
Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician
Assistants revoked Respondent’s
Arizona physician assistant license. RD,
at 3.2 According to Arizona online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, as of August 23, 2024,
the status of Respondent’s Arizona
physician assistant license was
revoked.3 Arizona Regulatory Board of
Physician Assistants, Find Your PA,
https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/
PASearch (last visited date of signature
of this Order).4 Accordingly, the Agency
2 See also Government’s Notice of Filing of
Evidence of Lack of State Authority; Service of
Order to Show Cause; and Motion for Summary
Disposition, Exhibit A, at 10.
3 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an
agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage
in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint
1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an
agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a
party is entitled, on timely request, to an
opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly,
Respondent may dispute the Agency’s finding by
filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such
motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.
4 As of August 23, 2024, the Arizona Regulatory
Board of Physician Assistants website identified
Respondent’s physician assistant license as
revoked. However, there is no longer any record of
Respondent’s licensure on the website. Despite
being provided an opportunity to so do, Respondent
has not established that his Arizona license has
been reinstated or that he otherwise has state
authority to dispense controlled substances.
Following the issuance of the RD, Respondent did
not file any Exceptions to indicate that his license
had been restored. Additionally, on October 1,
2024, the Agency issued a Briefing Order requesting
documentary evidence regarding the status of
Respondent’s Arizona physician assistant license.
Respondent’s acknowledged receipt of the Order,
but did not provide any responsive documentation
or evidence regarding the status of his Arizona
license. Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Respondent’s Arizona physician assistant license
remains revoked. See Fares F. Yasin, M.D., 88 FR
74523, 74524 n.5 (2023); Heather M. Entrekin,
DVM, 88 FR 17266, 17266 (2023). Respondent may
dispute the Agency’s finding by filing a motion for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Feb 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
finds that Respondent is not currently
licensed to practice as a physician
assistant in Arizona, the state in which
he is registered with DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 of the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
license or registration suspended . . .
[or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.’’
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has
also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The
Attorney General can register a
physician to dispense controlled
substances ‘if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices.’ . . . The very
definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to
prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by
the United States or the jurisdiction in
which he practices’ to dispense
controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The
Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet.
for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).5
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen
calendar days of the date of this Order with
supporting documentation (showing that
Respondent had state authority to dispense
controlled substances on or before the date of this
Order). Any such motion and response shall be
filed and served by email to the other party and to
Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.
5 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term
‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other
person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted,
by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . ,
to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s
registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress
has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess
state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner
under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that
revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer
authorized to dispense controlled substances under
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
According to Arizona statute, ‘‘[e]very
person who manufactures, distributes,
dispenses, prescribes or uses for
scientific purposes any controlled
substance within th[e] state or who
proposes to engage in the manufacture,
distribution, prescribing or dispensing
of or using for scientific purposes any
controlled substance within th[e] state
must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a
current license or permit as a medical
practitioner as defined in § 32–1901
. . . .’’ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 36–
2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32–1901
defines a ‘‘[m]edical practitioner’’ as
‘‘any medical doctor . . . or other
person who is licensed and authorized
by law to use and prescribe drugs and
devices to treat sick and injured human
beings or animals or to diagnose or
prevent sickness in human beings or
animals in [Arizona] or any state,
territory or district of the United
States.’’ Id. section 32–1901.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent lacks
authority to practice as a physician
assistant in Arizona. As discussed
above, only a licensed medical
practitioner can dispense controlled
substances in Arizona. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to practice
as a physician assistant in Arizona, and
therefore is not a licensed medical
practitioner, Respondent is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Respondent’s DEA registration be
revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. MP7845766 issued to
Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A. Further,
the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372; Sheran
Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR
27617. Moreover, because ‘‘the controlling
question’’ in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a practitioner’s
registration ‘‘is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’ Hooper, 76 FR
71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847,
12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that
revocation is warranted even where a practitioner
is still challenging the underlying action. Bourne
Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield
Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no
consequence that Respondent is still challenging
the underlying action here, see Respondent’s
Answer, at 2; Respondent’s Motion to Continue
Show Cause Hearing. What is consequential is the
Agency’s finding that Respondent is not currently
authorized to dispense controlled substances in
Arizona, the state in which he is registered with the
DEA. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2
(2022); see also Order Denying Respondent’s
Motion to Continue.
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 25 / Friday, February 7, 2025 / Notices
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending
applications of Herold Pierre-Louis,
P.A., to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other
pending application of Herold PierreLouis, P.A., for additional registration in
Arizona. This Order is effective March
10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on January 31, 2025, by Acting
Administrator Derek Maltz. That
document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DEA. For
administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DEA Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of DEA. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025–02339 Filed 2–6–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
James T. Craig, D.D.S.; Decision and
Order
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
On May 24, 2023, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to James T. Craig, D.D.S.,
of Aurora, Colorado (Registrant).
Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The
OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s Certificate of Registration
No. FC0032348, alleging that
Registrant’s registration should be
revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently
without authority to prescribe,
administer, dispense, or otherwise
handle controlled substances in
Colorado, the state in which [he is]
registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1
1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s
registration expired on August 31, 2024. The fact
that a registrant allows his registration to expire
during the pendency of an OSC does not impact the
Agency’s jurisdiction or prerogative under the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the
OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474,
68476–79 (2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Feb 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
The OSC notified Registrant of his
right to file a written request for hearing,
and that if he failed to file such a
request, he would be deemed to have
waived his right to a hearing and be in
default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 2.2 ‘‘A default, unless
excused, shall be deemed to constitute
a waiver of the registrant’s/applicant’s
right to a hearing and an admission of
the factual allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21
CFR 1301.43(e).
Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a
registrant . . . is deemed to be in
default . . . DEA may then file a request
for final agency action with the
Administrator, along with a record to
support its request. In such
circumstances, the Administrator may
enter a default final order pursuant to
[21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1).
Here, the Government has requested
final agency action based on Registrant’s
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c),
(f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 3; see also 21 CFR
1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of
Registrant’s default, the factual
allegations in the OSC are admitted.
According to the OSC, on March 23,
2023, Registrant’s Colorado dental
license was suspended. RFAAX 2, at 1–
2. According to Colorado online records,
of which the Agency takes official
notice, Registrant’s Colorado dentist
license is revoked.3 Colorado Division
of Professions and Occupations License
Search, https://apps2.colorado.gov/
dora/licensing/lookup/licenselookup.
aspx (last visited date of signature of
this Order).
2 Based on the Government’s submissions in its
RFAA dated July 18, 2024, the Agency finds that
service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate.
Specifically, the included Declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on May 26,
2023, Registrant was personally served a copy of the
OSC at the Arapahoe County Detention Center in
Centennial, Colorado, where Registrant remained
incarcerated. RFAAX 3, at 2.
3 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an
agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage
in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint
1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an
agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a
party is entitled, on timely request, to an
opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly,
Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by
filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such
motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to the DEA Office of
the Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9169
Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not licensed to practice as
a dentist in Colorado, the state in which
he is registered with DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
license or registration suspended . . .
[or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.’’
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has
also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The
Attorney General can register a
physician to dispense controlled
substances ‘if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices.’ . . . The very
definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to
prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by
the United States or the jurisdiction in
which he practices’ to dispense
controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The
Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet.
for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).4
According to Colorado statute,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user,
4 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term
‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other
person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted,
by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . ,
to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s
registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress
has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess
state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner
under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that
revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer
authorized to dispense controlled substances under
the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371–72; Sheran
Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR
27617.
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 25 (Friday, February 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9167-9169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02339]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24-47]
Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A.; Decision and Order
On May 21, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Herold Pierre-Louis,
P.A., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
MP7845766, alleging that Respondent's DEA registration should be
revoked because Respondent is ``without authority to prescribe,
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the
State of Arizona, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id.
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
On May 30, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer
to the OSC. On June 10, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition, to which Respondent did not respond.\1\ On June 27, 2024,
Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent's registration, finding that because
Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in
Arizona, the state in which he is registered with DEA, ``there is no
other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide.'' Order Granting
the
[[Page 9168]]
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings,
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 5. Respondent did not file exceptions
to the RD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 17, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to Continue Show
Cause Hearing to request a continuance on the instant proceedings,
which the Administrative Law Judge denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby
incorporates by reference the entirety of the ALJ's rulings, findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction as found in the
RD and summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
On or about November 29, 2023, the Arizona Regulatory Board of
Physician Assistants revoked Respondent's Arizona physician assistant
license. RD, at 3.\2\ According to Arizona online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice, as of August 23, 2024, the status of
Respondent's Arizona physician assistant license was revoked.\3\
Arizona Regulatory Board of Physician Assistants, Find Your PA, https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/PASearch (last visited date of signature of this
Order).\4\ Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not
currently licensed to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona, the
state in which he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See also Government's Notice of Filing of Evidence of Lack
of State Authority; Service of Order to Show Cause; and Motion for
Summary Disposition, Exhibit A, at 10.
\3\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e),
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the
contrary.'' Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the Agency's finding
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of
findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this
Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration at [email protected].
\4\ As of August 23, 2024, the Arizona Regulatory Board of
Physician Assistants website identified Respondent's physician
assistant license as revoked. However, there is no longer any record
of Respondent's licensure on the website. Despite being provided an
opportunity to so do, Respondent has not established that his
Arizona license has been reinstated or that he otherwise has state
authority to dispense controlled substances. Following the issuance
of the RD, Respondent did not file any Exceptions to indicate that
his license had been restored. Additionally, on October 1, 2024, the
Agency issued a Briefing Order requesting documentary evidence
regarding the status of Respondent's Arizona physician assistant
license. Respondent's acknowledged receipt of the Order, but did not
provide any responsive documentation or evidence regarding the
status of his Arizona license. Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Respondent's Arizona physician assistant license remains revoked.
See Fares F. Yasin, M.D., 88 FR 74523, 74524 n.5 (2023); Heather M.
Entrekin, DVM, 88 FR 17266, 17266 (2023). Respondent may dispute the
Agency's finding by filing a motion for reconsideration of findings
of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order with
supporting documentation (showing that Respondent had state
authority to dispense controlled substances on or before the date of
this Order). Any such motion and response shall be filed and served
by email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration, at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) ``upon a finding that the registrant .
. . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or]
revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized
by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled
substances.'' With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held
that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances
under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and
maintaining a practitioner's registration. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S.
243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General can register a physician to
dispense controlled substances `if the applicant is authorized to
dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in
which he practices.' . . . The very definition of a `practitioner'
eligible to prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which
he practices' to dispense controlled substances. Sec. 802(21).''). The
Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L.
Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F.
App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
CSA. First, Congress defined the term ``practitioner'' to mean ``a
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . ,
to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C.
802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a
practitioner's registration, Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because
Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, DEA
has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration
is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to
dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which
he practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371, 71372;
Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR
11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27617.
Moreover, because ``the controlling question'' in a proceeding
brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a
practitioner's registration ``is currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the [S]tate,'' Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (quoting
Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also
long held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner is
still challenging the underlying action. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR
18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987).
Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent is still challenging
the underlying action here, see Respondent's Answer, at 2;
Respondent's Motion to Continue Show Cause Hearing. What is
consequential is the Agency's finding that Respondent is not
currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Arizona,
the state in which he is registered with the DEA. Adley Dasilva,
P.A., 87 FR 69341, 69341 n.2 (2022); see also Order Denying
Respondent's Motion to Continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Arizona statute, ``[e]very person who manufactures,
distributes, dispenses, prescribes or uses for scientific purposes any
controlled substance within th[e] state or who proposes to engage in
the manufacture, distribution, prescribing or dispensing of or using
for scientific purposes any controlled substance within th[e] state
must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a current license or permit as a
medical practitioner as defined in Sec. 32-1901 . . . .'' Ariz. Rev.
Stat. Ann. section 36-2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32-1901 defines a
``[m]edical practitioner'' as ``any medical doctor . . . or other
person who is licensed and authorized by law to use and prescribe drugs
and devices to treat sick and injured human beings or animals or to
diagnose or prevent sickness in human beings or animals in [Arizona] or
any state, territory or district of the United States.'' Id. section
32-1901.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent
lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona. As
discussed above, only a licensed medical practitioner can dispense
controlled substances in Arizona. Thus, because Respondent lacks
authority to practice as a physician assistant in Arizona, and
therefore is not a licensed medical practitioner, Respondent is not
eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will
order that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No.
MP7845766 issued to Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A. Further,
[[Page 9169]]
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Herold Pierre-
Louis, P.A., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other
pending application of Herold Pierre-Louis, P.A., for additional
registration in Arizona. This Order is effective March 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 31, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document
with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-02339 Filed 2-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
